1) "The intent was to turn them and get in behind them by a move to the left. We get that done very well. Now they get a free ride off this map and on to the next one in a great blocking position of II Corps. His right is flat out turned at Sylamore. How does he not have to do a fighting with draw back to Mt. Olive? If anything II Corps should have the first shot at getting to Mt. Olive and not them. You should restore them both to Sylamore and let the fighting progress from there. However it goes from there it goes. Not fair. It penalizes the initiative."
2) "I would reiterate a protest for the decision at Sylamore. Looking at the blog, and looking at the map, we had them. I understand the problem with the edge of the map within the game, but to say "that's it, we're moving" completely nullifies the movement. There needs to be something to offset the decision-- so, for example, do we get the men back lost to casualties as we moved? Do the enemy forces lose men to simulate straggling or captured men in the confusion of the retreat?
Something, or else we might as well just stay in static positions and start simulating the First World War for lack of strategic initiative. "
"3) The object of the movement would be for naught if the ruling stands - to either get into the enemy rear or ourselves get ahead of the opponents on the Sylamore Road. II Corps wasn't intending to be "gamey" by using the edge of the map to protect my flank. My object, as stated to the moderator on January 11th, was to get behind my opponent and if possible gain the Sylamore Road and move off map. If this cannot be done, I would at least like for the risk of such a movement to pay off. The current ruling rewards them for being outgeneraled. "
No comments:
Post a Comment